N.A.S.SATYAVARDHANA RAO Vs. N.SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the validity and legality of the order dtd. 28/2/2013 in F.C.O.P. No.637 of 2001 rendered by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present appeal is preferred by the husband, petitioner therein.

(2.) By the impugned order, the learned Family Court dismissed the F.C.O.P. filed by the husband, appellant herein, under Sec. 10 of the Divorce Act seeking dissolution of marriage that took place between the parties on 15/5/1995 on the grounds of cruelty and harassment.

(3.) The facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage of the petitioner-husband with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 15/5/1995 as per Christian customs and rites. The petitioner is Hindu and respondent is Christian by religion. By the date of marriage, the petitioner was working as Teacher in a private School at Dilsukhnagar and was drawing very meager salary and the respondent was working as Telephone Operator in Telugu Academy and was drawing monthly salary of around Rs.8,000.00. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and started living at her parents' house with a view to search for a new house at Dilsukhnagar at the place where the petitioner was doing his job. The parents of respondent gave one room in the first floor of the house to the respondent and petitioner for their living. For the interview attended in the year 1994 before the marriage, the petitioner has got Government Teacher job at West Godavari District immediately after ten days of the marriage. The petitioner has advised the respondent to stay with her parents and left West Godavari District to join duty in the month of July, 1995. The petitioner used to visit the respondent at Hyderabad twice or thrice in a month and also at the time of lengthy holidays. After getting Teacher job at Hyderabad, the petitioner has resigned at Chintalapudi, West Godavari and came to Hyderabad and started searching for separate house but respondent refused to live in a separate house on the pretext of her pregnancy. On 13/4/1997 the respondent begot a male child after undergoing caesarian operation. The petitioner and his parents opposed the function on 15th day since, as per customs, the ceremony has to be celebrated on 21st day. The parents and sisters of the respondent prevailed upon the petitioner's parents with regard to the ceremony and asked them to stay in the portion of the petitioner. Having no other alternative, they stayed in the portion of the petitioner. During their stay at Hyderabad, the mother and sister-in-law of the respondent insulted the petitioner's parents by removing articles one by one from the portion of the petitioner. On the 15th day, the mother of the respondent has locked the iron almirah in the portion of the petitioner and took away the keys. The petitioner when enquired the respondent, she told that for safety, her mother locked Almirah. The petitioner and his parents and other relatives felt insult about the incident and after function, they left Chintalapudi. The respondent's parents performed the function on 15th day, as a normal function but, without informing the petitioner, the respondent and their parents again performed cradle ceremony on 21st day in the absence of petitioner and their parents and relatives. The petitioner having felt scant regard from the respondent and her parents, has decided to live separately. Accordingly, the petitioner started living separately in a house at Chintal Basti, Hyderabad but the respondent refused to join him. While leaving the house of respondent, after due verification of all the packages and after satisfying herself, she allowed the petitioner to go out. After three months, she voluntarily came with household articles to the house of petitioner and joined him. During the stay, she picked up quarrels with the house owner and used to do things against the wishes of the house owner with a view to take the petitioner back to her parents house. Again, the respondent left the house of the petitioner in the month of October, 1997 before Deepavali on the pretext of foul smell emitting from the white wash to the house. Again after three days, she came back to the petitioner and picked up quarrel and half an hour after the quarrel, at the instance of the respondent, her brother, sister-in-law and sister and her husband came to the house of petitioner and started abusing him in filthy language and also made an attempt to kill him and left the house. Subsequently, upon persuasion of a Church member, the respondent had joined the petitioner in the month of December and stayed with the petitioner only for a period of one month 20 days and finally she left the house having quarreled with the petitioner. On the next day in the morning, the respondent came with Police and took the petitioner to the Police Station, wherein also, she demanded the petitioner to reside with her at her parents' house as a pre-condition to drop the criminal case. The petitioner has refused for the proposal. After due enquiry, the Police have sent back the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the concerned Police in view of the threats made by the respondent and her family members. On 29/1/1998, the respondent took away all her household articles from the petitioner's house. Then the petitioner filed O.P. No.124 of 1998 against the respondent for divorce but it was finally dismissed for default. After receiving the notice in the above OP, as a counter blast, the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner before the Mahila Court under Sec. 498-A of the IPC and also under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the pendency of the divorce OP, on the advice of the Court, the respondent again joined with the petitioner in the month of March/April, 2000. As usual, the respondent picked up quarrels with the petitioner and left his company. The behaviour and conduct of the respondent has caused lot of mental agony and as a consequence the respondent was subjected to cruelty to such an extent, where he was afraid about even imagining the company of the respondent itself. Hence, the petition.